Basically, I think it's time we scrap the above argument. I have never thought it legitimate and have often criticised it in certain individual player threads. In my opinion, when it comes to certain technical skills, it simply doesn't matter what position a player operates in and it shouldn't have any bearing on the number we assign to them. Shooting is the main area where this argument is often used. For example, when rating a defender (let's call him 'Player A'), we will see the argument go as follows: "he's good at shooting for a fullback, how about SA: 71 and ST: 73". When rating a striker ('Player B'), we may see something like this: "he's pretty shit for a striker, he should have SA: 75 and ST: 77".So, Player A is considered to be a good shooter and Player B is considered to be below par, yet there's a 4 point gap between them in both Shot Accuracy and Shot Technique (in favour of the guy who is supposedly pretty wasteful) and this is entirely down to the positions they play in.

***************************************

We have become so accustomed to the standards this site has been using for so many years, that we are blind to the fact that in a lot of cases, we are (or at least I believe we are) rating a lot of these players wrong. I'll hold my hands up and admit that I also look at players this way sometimes, it's hard not to, but it's a habit which needs breaking.

If we see a midfielder with say;Shot Accuracy: 75Shot Power: 86Shot Technique: 77

What do you think? You think "this guy has a very decent shot on him" because that is how we have been looking at stats for so long now. If you see a striker with the same shooting stats, what do you think? You think "hmm, this guy isn't so great at finishing". I know this because this is how I look at them. I know it is wrong (hence this thread), but it is what we are used to.

***************************************

I recently updated Emile Heskey to a Shot Accuracy:70 and a Shot Technique:68 in an attempt to get the ball rolling. It looks ridiculous at first, and the phrase on the tip of everyones tongue looking at the set would be "I know he's shit at finishing for a striker, but these are a bit harsh" or something similar. Which is completely incorrect. He's shit at finishing full stop. If he was fielded at Center Back, yet went up for a corner kick say, and a chance fell to him, he's not going to be worse because he's playing as a defender because he's the same person. He's a footballer and he has certain abilities like every other footballer has regardless of where he plays.

***************************************

Let's have a look at some real examples from the Premier League. I'll take a Defender, a Midfielder and a Striker and we can compare the stats they have for their shooting.

Can we honestly say that these three players regularly show the same level of Shot Accuracy and are all more or less similar in all aspects of shooting? Of course we can't. Jordan Henderson is, in my opinion, the most dangerous shooter of the three. Ironically, I also believe that the Striker in question, is the worst. Gary Cahill, has shown that when presented with a chance in the opposition box, he can be as dangerous as a decent Center Forward, yet is rated alongside one of the most infamously awful strikers in the country. Yet, when we look at their stats, we have been drilled to see things differently. We see Cahill and thing "Wow, this guy is class for a Defender". We look at Di Santo and think, "God this guy is awful for a Striker". Both sentences are correct, yet for some reason, when we bring a rating system into play, which is what this website effectively is, we see it fit to rate them equally based on these imaginary ladders we have in our heads which, as I have alluded to exhaustively now, are based on the positions these players play in on the pitch. I mean honestly, of the three, who would you trust most to find the bottom corner if they were through one on one with the opposition goalkeeper?

There is only a couple of points difference here and there when we look at them which is wrong and is a poor representation of an individual persons talents on a football pitch.

***************************************

I am not trying to be a revolutionist, I'm pretty laid back when it comes to PES and I tend to go with the flow when it comes to how stats are interpreted. I know that there are members on the site who are passionate about this area of stats making (new ideas and approaches to stats making etc) and I trust their judgement, this is just something that has bugged me for some time and I think needs addressing. I'm also not claiming that I am right and the current system is wrong, it's just an opinion I have which I wanted to share with my fellow members. Apologies for the essay, I didn't set out to write so much but then again, there's so much more I could say! Hopefully people reading get the gist of what I am saying though

That's a great post. You're certainly right of course. I know I'm guilty of thinking that way too.

There may well be some reason that it would be problematic to rate defenders above strikers when deserved, but if there is, I don't know of it. I'd love to make this change. It has to start somewhere and at sometime and Heskey makes a perfect place to start! I think the only difficulty or issue to be aware of is the "regularly displays" problem. A defender probably WON'T regularly display something like SA, simply because they don't shoot regularly. What I suppose we should do is consider 'regularly' differently for CB's, CF's. So it will simply take more time to discern what a CB regularly shows, because it will take longer to see them have had many shots. Though of course, if, once we HAVE seen them take enough shots to fairly assess them, they have indeed demonstrated a better value, we should give them that value. What I'm saying is, we should always give values based on what a player regularly displays, but that it will likely take many more games to truly have witnessed what, for example, a CB regularly displays for shooting. Does that make sense?

Eitherway, I'd like this change to be gradually implemented, and to begin to be implemented as soon as possible really. Excellent post.

I see where you're coming from yeah. I mean, it's taken this long for Gary Cahill to receive his current values and he's been in the top flight for a good number of years.

I think if anything, it's Shot Technique that's the worst rated. Javier Hernandez could only dream of hitting a ball as sweetly as someone like Leighton Baines can for instance, yet there is a 4 point gap in favour of Hernandez. Darren bent is almost 10 points ahead of Baines and he can be woeful at times in terms of getting a clean connection. He just scuffs shots accurately Sure, there's a reason why Strikers are Strikers and Defenders are Defenders, but the whole thing needs revamping.

Definitely agree. Though I'd simply never considered it before. And your examples are perfectly chosen.

I was thinking just now, with SA for instance, a CB will get less chances on goal than a CF, obviously. And suppose the CB scores most of the few chances they get. We'd say, "he's got good SA for a CB" and give him a 73. Suppose a CF misses most of the many chances they get. We'd say, "he's good bad SA for a CF" and give him a 73. This is, when you think about the exact OPPOSITE of what we should do. We have two players, one who scores most of their few chances, and another who misses most of their many chances. The CB has actually demonstrated a greater tendency and reliability when it comes to finishing - they've shown that they're more likely to score per chance. The CF will still undoubtedly score more, because... well, they're a CF. The CB won't score many despite a superior SA, because they're down at the other end of the field.

Passing is another area that tends to be underrated for certain positions. With SA/ST often underrated for defenders too, it means CB's especially will all be within about 5 points of eachother in shooting and passing stats. What this then means is that CB's are only really valuable for their ratings in about 4 different areas - defence, response, body balance, top speed (maybe). They're all roughly as good as eachother at shooting and passing, so those 4 attributes become all that really differentiates between them. Whereas in reality, having a defender that can be relied upon to hit the target if called upon would be a worthy option to have. The same, moreso even, for passing.

ballmer wrote:I was thinking just now, with SA for instance, a CB will get less chances on goal than a CF, obviously. And suppose the CB scores most of the few chances they get. We'd say, "he's got good SA for a CB" and give him a 73. Suppose a CF misses most of the many chances they get. We'd say, "he's good bad SA for a CF" and give him a 73. This is, when you think about the exact OPPOSITE of what we should do. We have two players, one who scores most of their few chances, and another who misses most of their many chances. The CB has actually demonstrated a greater tendency and reliability when it comes to finishing - they've shown that they're more likely to score per chance. The CF will still undoubtedly score more, because... well, they're a CF. The CB won't score many despite a superior SA, because they're down at the other end of the field.

That is exactlywhat I mean.

The goals Midfielders such as Henderson and Arteta score, for example, require far more technique than goal poachers like Bent and Hernandez need to convert their chances.

Passing is another area as you say which needs similar attention. I think Long Passing is the main concern personally. If a Center Back picks out good cross field passes regularly we will see high 70/low 80 values assigned to them to reflect their skills. However these same figures would be assigned to a Midfielder who is considered to have a limited range of passing. It's exactly the same argument as the shooting stats. Short passing I think is slightly different in that whilst there are those select few Defenders who genuinely deserve to be in the same region as Midfielders, they are not demanded (generally) of to make passes behind the opposition defence or for players to run on to etc as much as Midfielders obviously do. There is also far less pressure (usually) for Defenders passing out as they know everything is in front of them and generally they're going to have more time. A lot of Defenders are safe passers and/or hoofers and there really isn't a lot to differentiate them which is already reflected across the forum, however there are, as you allude to, those players who are far more astute at passing.

Spot on Jez, always annoyed me too. If a defender pulls of a few good shots, all kinds of excuses or whatever come up to downplay the quality of the shots. But the opposite happens for a striker who pulled a few shots that were terrible.Luiz has shown to be decent shooter when he decides to take a shot but he would get a 71 at best..

Recently I was thinking about the fact why a striker who is very accuracte also has to posses great ST. I mean you never see a striker with SA 91/ST 79 for instance. But I'm sure there are/were who is like that in terms of shooting.I always try my hardest to ignore looking at things like the way you mentioned and therefore have values which would be considered weird on here in my OF.

And I couldn't agree more with long passing issue with defenders. Terry for instance plays long passes to the sides regularly which a midfielder would get like a 82 for. But he's a CB so that's not possible.

thor34 wrote:JUMP: 80/81/82. Digestible methionine and leap up to splice the header. From what I saw the half-length coat will easily to Angeleri.

Jurgens brought something similar to the board's attention a while ago if I recall correctly, regarding how ATT is rated between different roles to be specific.

But that would be a copernican revolution for PSD, I've always looked at this "role lobbies" (or better, color lobbies: blues' SA is world class if 75+, greens' SA is world class if 80+, reds' SA is world class if 87+ ecc ecc) with disfavour but meh, that means a complete revamp for tons of players.

Btw give me a whistle if this will go through, can't wait to finally upgrade classic Perrotta to 596598i69786753646 attack like in my OF.

It's impossible not to agree with the point here. I think that, after PES 2010 arrived with its incredibly stupid 'average ratings', the playes who (like in my case) play with the new-gen PES games have grown a bit accostumed of looking at a player's average rating to guess if he's really good or not. Even if you know those average ratings are shit, it becomes difficult not to look at them. IRL a striker with relatively bad shooting skills can compensate it with speed, good passing and work-rate, and still be considered a good player even if his shooting alone is probably worse than many midfielders. But ingame his bad shooting stats mean a shitty average rating, thus the game decides he's a shitty player and AI-controlled teams won't field him even if they really should at certain moments. Which becomes specially hilarious in PES 2012 since even with all-white shooting stats you can almost score from anywhere given the correct circunstances.

I believe in change, I rated david luiz tech 85, I tried to get the ball rolling and not much came of it, probably because either subconsciously or not we all rate players by position, I try and have a got at an unbias SA ladder for a few well known players when I can

Mr. Evans wrote:Recently I was thinking about the fact why a striker who is very accuracte also has to posses great ST. I mean you never see a striker with SA 91/ST 79 for instance. But I'm sure there are/were who is like that in terms of shooting.

Was thinking about this too today. Like, it is not uncommon, in fact it is actually very common, to see players (often Midfielders) with say SA:71 and ST:82 yet have you ever seen someone with it the other way round? SA:82 ST:71? It just never happens. For some reason we're far more generous with technique than we are accuracy and I believe that we have become far too obsessed with the aesthetics of a set of stats on screen rather than the way they play in the game.

I don't actually think it will be too hard to change it. As long as we (when I say we, I'm talking to Evans and Stu more than anyone else) agree on how we are defining Shot Accuracy and Technique, we could quite easily (well, it'll be lengthy but yeah) go away and produce some ladders at some point. Obviously the same can be done with passing etc but one step at a time eh?

This ever since even before joining the site have annoyed me....When i was younger and had no knowledge whatsoever on stats, i used to prefer playing with good shooting stats players( not sure why though ), constantly midfielders whom with i cut in also, and i constantly got annoyed with konami way of ratings shooting, why in hell should a midfielder get lower shooting just because of being midfielder ?! Now i was wrong on the most of players i got annoyed with them having so low shooting skills, like krasic or pepe, but i was right in my general consensus, or at least thats what i believe until know.

In the past i tried to express my thoughts on the matter with some threads and posts....Nothing to be proud of though, i felt excatly what you. Same goes for ST, i mean 90% of the players in the database have ST>SA, how can that be so ? Ive always felt also, PSD underrates SA, IMO with no real sense at all, ST have a higher standart for player than SA, i dont mean more players with 90+ ST and not with SA, i mean, a higher STANDART, i also feel in game the numbers we give to players regarding their SA, arent as effective as IRL, most accurate shooters sits on 83 and 82, when IRL they display an easy of 85...I also tried to share my opinion in the past about SA...

And finally is good that you pointed out that of being posssible to see SA: 71 and ST: 82, but not the opposite, and theres no necesity of so extreme values, i mean it neither happens something more believable like SA: 79 and ST: 74, but SA: 74 and ST: 79 ? sure always

Agree in most what you (all) said. Another point are keepers; how could it be that hard and awful CB have FAR better dribble/technique/agility than gifted and out of common keepers like I don't know Valdes, Carrizo, Casillas, Rogerio Ceni, Higuita, Navarro Montoya...or if they have lower than those keepers difference is minimmium. Imo there are keepers that are better or at least like an average player in SPA/SPS/AGI/TECH and they have low ratings cause are keepers.

A really thinking post this your bring to us Jez. There is no more than true on here. But, i only have a doubt in one aspect and i will glad if you correct me if im wrong... There is no hidden that in some PES editions (if not in all) happens this: A defender, lets call him player X (despite his function/position CB or SB), and a midfielder/striker, lets call him player Y (despite function/position). Player Y attacks Player X team, lets say that both player have TS 70. The result is that Player X is going to be faster than Player Y, even they have the same value there is going to be really easily to Player X to catch Player Y.With this little example, i am trying to say that PES has like a help or some kind of AI assistance or handicap (or whatever you want to call it) to some stats depending of the position. A defender with a low value TS/ACC is going to be like a midfielder/striker with higher value. I think it happens also in BB (mostly on physical aspects). In PES2012 i think this difference/handicap is less noticeable, is like more standardize. Thought? (happens to you also or is just me that im starting to get crazy )

A real quality post, its definitely something that people have become quite set in. And it isn't really restricted to position variations. According to my memory people did this for youth players as opposed to an older player as well, I don't know if that is how it still is.

I agree with the change, no doubt that many players are overvalued or undervalued according to their position in the field. Same with the SA must always be less than the ST , is something we all head for a long time and we must change it.